On Satanism

[Moon1ight]

Hi everyone
Recently I've stumbled over the book " An Exorcist Explains the Demonic: the Antics of Satan and His Army of Fallen Angels", written by a vatican exorcist. In a quote, I found the best description of Satanism I've ever seen so far:
"What is the [objective of Satanists]? Satanists wish to develop [their] depraved form of devotion through a diffusion of the theory and practice of three basic principles: you can do all that you wish, no one has the right to command you, and you are the god of yourself. The first principle intends to confer full liberty to the adherent on everything he wishes to do, without limits. The second is the release from the principle of authority, that is, from any obligation to obey parents, the Church, the state, and whoever places restrictions in the name of the common good. The third denies all the truth that comes directly from God: paradise, the inferno, purgatory, judgment, the Ten Commandments, the precepts of the Church, Mary, and so forth."
(https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2018/03/12/moloch-is-but-a-vassal-of-our-true-enemy/)
I find this amazing – much clearer and purer than LaVey. 

In an argument on that blog, I also wrote my own views on Satanism, which I want to keep around:
"It is possible to hold long-term, well-considered desires which are contrary to your doctrine and thus -- on your view -- sinful. One can for example be a proud thief. You would have the thief reject his desire and instead choose to live according to Catholic desires -- "What would Jesus do?" However, if one's long-term well-considered desire are not in harmony with "Jesus' desires", I would say that one literally *cannot live* according to Jesus. If one tries, one has given up one's *own* life to become an imitation of Jesus. Contrary to Catholicism, one does not Gain Life Eternal, but rather *looses life* completely!

Thus, even on Catholicism being true, Hell seems *preferable* because then I at least get to *live* (properly understood as living *my way*) for *a while* as opposed to *not at all* by following Jesus instead of myself. The harshness of this position surprises even me

Now, of course you can directly deny my point -- "God being Truth and Goodness, being an imitation of Jesus just *is* the best way to live one's life". And what can I say to you? Take Satan as a role model! He chose damnation because that gives him at least a *bit* of *his own life*. He'd rather *die* his way *later*, than live someone else's way, since the latter option means he'd never *actually* live *at all*. Have you no Pride?"
This to me is the foundation of Finding one's True Will – the realisation that one cannot follow anything but oneself and live. From here begins the search for one's true self, for what it is that you really wish. And then you just do it and whever else is necessary to keep you going. To me, that's really all there's to it, while Crowley and LaVey go out of their way to soften up this core (see e.g. http://lib.oto-usa.org/crowley/essays/duty.html ).

[mahi]

the voices in my head have different view of satanism.  they say there are two kinds of satanism, one is pronounced saytenism and one is pronounced (like in latin) sahtahnism.

saytenism is seeing the illusionary dark side.  it is (sometimes) christians projecting their denied selves/Self onto others.  it is (sometimes) the saytenists believing they are their interpretation of evil.

sahtahnism is belief that everyone (including our selves) is fully infinitely good/evil.

[Moon1ight]

By "is fully infinitely good/evil.", do you mean "good and evil" or "either good or evil"? Or something else?

I myself don't really believe in "Evil", as a concept. I'm a fan of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals here ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Genealogy_of_Morals/First_Essay ) – There is Good, the abilty to reach your goals, and Bad, failing at being good. "Evil" is what the Bad call the Good when the latter do what the former dislike

There is the phrase "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" – and when the weak resent the strong, they call them "evil". Then they call themselves "good" for not doing what the "evil" do, attacking, killing etc. Which, since they are weak, they can't do in the first place. So they're trying to turn their weakness into a illusory virtue. That's at least my quick interpretation of Nietzsche.

Applying this to Satan we get that Satan "disobeys" (i.e. obeys his own will, not god's) and is therefore called "evil" by those who obey god.... Which simply means, people call anyone evil who disagrees with them strongly enough.

[mahi]

i mean a fusion of good/evil, which i think is a little different than good and evil, as if they are separate energies.  ...more like a homonogenation, tho still with the magnetic flowings of positive/negative.  ...like the science diagram of a magnet where every atom in the magnet holds both pos/neg.

i don't believe in evil as anything but a direction/node in a dimension.  the dimension is infinite so there is no way to get to the end, to the actual evil.

in my belief system, the christian and the saytenist both see themselves as one or the other direction, while the sahtahnist sees themselves as this fusion (analogical fractal fusion) of equal opposites (equal because of the nature of infinity on both (or all) sides).

i'm trying to figure out how to respond to your other comments.  for now, i hope this makes clearer what i meant above.

[mahi]

for me, weak and strong fall into the same patterns, given the infinity on all sides.  no matter how strong one gets, they're is going to be just as much strong beings that will consider you weak, and vice versa.

with disobedience and obedience, it's kind of the same.  the Self is the collective of the totality of selves.  obedience to one set of selves or others is disobedience to another set of selves.  the Self can only be obeyed/disobeyed given the nature of It's totality

since this is not the satanism that you are intending, i'll refrain from commenting further on this thread.